(deffact somefacts
(head1 abc))
is asserted as (MAIN::head1 abc)
(defmodule SUB)
(deffact SUB::somemorefacts
(head1 def))
is also asserted as (MAIN::head1 def)
Shouldn't the latter be asserted as (SUB::head1 def)?
In fact, it only gets asserted in the module only when specified like
(deffact SUB::somemorefacts
(SUB::head1 def))
More specifically, any facts in the deffact statement, defined before a fact
definition referencing a module, are asserted to the MAIN:: module. All
facts after a specific module fact are asserted to that same specific
module.
Ex:
(defmodule SUB)
(deffact SUB::somefacts
(f1 s1)
(f1 s2)
(SUB:f1 s3)
(f1 s4))
yields...
f-1 (MAIN::f1 s1)
f-2 (MAIN::f1 s2)
f-3 (SUB::f1 s3)
f-4 (SUB::f1 s4)
Effectively, all deffacts, regardless of the defmodule they follow, by
default extend the MAIN:: repository of facts and are accessable to all
modules. This is unlike the assert statement, when executed in a module,
which asserts the fact with the <module>:: prefix on the fact as a default.
I have a related question about modules and the scope of facts.
If the same fact head is defined in both modules, like ...
(deffact MAIN::somefacts
(head1 abc)
...
(deffact SUB::someotherfacts
(SUB::head1 def)
then a rule in module SUB will not fire with the (head1 abc) fact. As in...
(defrule SUB:rule1
(head1 ?a)
=>
(printout t ?a crlf))
This only prints "def".
Shouldn't the facts defined as MAIN:: be accessable to all modules even when
the names of the facts are the same?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the
list (use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
